In article , d wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 19:27:01 +0000
Sam Wilson wrote:
In article ,
"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

d wrote

Well that's the kids of a lot of service-men scuppered then despite them
having British passports.

British forces bases abroad are British sovereign terrority, so no, they
aren't.

Only Cyprus I think, hence the large number of natural born Brits with
place
of birth, Germany, that confuses the UKIP.

My wife has a birth certificate from the Ministry of Ag and Fish, Malta.

Ministry of Agriculture? Was she born in a barn?

No, a local hospital. The rest of the world is a foreign country: they
do things differently there.

It seems you would deny her voting rights in the UK. She has no such
rights anywhere else.

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:54:23 +0000
Sam Wilson wrote:
In article , d wrote:
My wife has a birth certificate from the Ministry of Ag and Fish, Malta.

Ministry of Agriculture? Was she born in a barn?

No, a local hospital. The rest of the world is a foreign country: they
do things differently there.

Congratulations on not spotting an obvious joke. I'll put in a smiley next time
just for you.

It seems you would deny her voting rights in the UK. She has no such
rights anywhere else.

Its all hypothetical anyway so who cares.

--
Spud

On 25/11/2016 10:40, d wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:54:23 +0000
Sam Wilson wrote:
In article , d wrote:
My wife has a birth certificate from the Ministry of Ag and Fish, Malta.

Ministry of Agriculture? Was she born in a barn?

No, a local hospital. The rest of the world is a foreign country: they
do things differently there.

Congratulations on not spotting an obvious joke. I'll put in a smiley next time
just for you.

It seems you would deny her voting rights in the UK. She has no such
rights anywhere else.

Its all hypothetical anyway so who cares.


You apparently do.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In article , d wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:54:23 +0000
Sam Wilson wrote:
In article , d wrote:
My wife has a birth certificate from the Ministry of Ag and Fish, Malta.

Ministry of Agriculture? Was she born in a barn?

No, a local hospital. The rest of the world is a foreign country: they
do things differently there.

Congratulations on not spotting an obvious joke. I'll put in a smiley next
time
just for you.

Thank you. I hadn't spotted the obviously ironic tenor of the rest of
your contributions, either.

It seems you would deny her voting rights in the UK. She has no such
rights anywhere else.

Its all hypothetical anyway so who cares.

I thought perhaps you did, but perhaps I should learn to ignore what you
write.

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.

Well, I was wrong. The LD won, and Wolmar lost his deposit. He obviously
had no chance of winning, but 1515 votes (4%) was a derisory result. He
should stick to writing railway books and articles.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.

Well, I was wrong. The LD won, and Wolmar lost his deposit. He obviously
had no chance of winning, but 1515 votes (4%) was a derisory result. He
should stick to writing railway books and articles.


I think that's a tad unfair

I doubt that the vote was only 1500 *because* Wolmar was the candidate.

Even if some "popular" (locally at least) Labourite was standing it would
have been the same result for them.

And if Wolmar wants a crack at a winnable seat he has to serve time running
the losing ones first - Even Maggie had to do that

tim

On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 02:26:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.

Well, I was wrong. The LD won, and Wolmar lost his deposit. He obviously
had no chance of winning, but 1515 votes (4%) was a derisory result. He
should stick to writing railway books and articles.

Zac lost by 4%. Will be interesting to see if any Remoaners start a grassroots
campaign on Twitter to call for a re-run "because its too close" and "what about
the 45%"? I mean they will won't they because they believe in democracy
regardless of the result, not because they're a bunch of mealy mouthed stinking
hypcrites who only like democracy when they get their own way and are utterly
full of it?

--
Spud

On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:27:55 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 02:26:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.

Well, I was wrong. The LD won, and Wolmar lost his deposit. He obviously
had no chance of winning, but 1515 votes (4%) was a derisory result. He
should stick to writing railway books and articles.

Zac lost by 4%. Will be interesting to see if any Remoaners start a grassroots
campaign on Twitter to call for a re-run "because its too close" and "what about
the 45%"? I mean they will won't they because they believe in democracy
regardless of the result, not because they're a bunch of mealy mouthed stinking
hypcrites who only like democracy when they get their own way and are utterly
full of it?

Obviously, those who voted Lib Dem were lied to so the by-election must be rerun G

On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:59:07 +0000
Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:27:55 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Zac lost by 4%. Will be interesting to see if any Remoaners start a grassroots
campaign on Twitter to call for a re-run "because its too close" and "what
about
the 45%"? I mean they will won't they because they believe in democracy
regardless of the result, not because they're a bunch of mealy mouthed
stinking
hypcrites who only like democracy when they get their own way and are utterly
full of it?

Obviously, those who voted Lib Dem were lied to so the by-election must be
rerun G

Well given most lib dem manifestos are a combination of wishful thinking, half
truths and outright lies thats exactly the case

--
Spud

On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:42:28 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:59:07 +0000
Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:27:55 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Zac lost by 4%. Will be interesting to see if any Remoaners start a grassroots
campaign on Twitter to call for a re-run "because its too close" and "what
about
the 45%"? I mean they will won't they because they believe in democracy
regardless of the result, not because they're a bunch of mealy mouthed
stinking
hypcrites who only like democracy when they get their own way and are utterly
full of it?

Obviously, those who voted Lib Dem were lied to so the by-election must be
rerun G

Well given most lib dem manifestos are a combination of wishful thinking, half
truths and outright lies thats exactly the case

Isn't "LibDem" surplus in that allegation ?